Beadle v. State

• Decision Date: 06 February 1958
• Citation: Beadle v. State, 203 Tenn. 97, 310 S.W.2d 157, 7 McCanless 97 (Tenn. 1958)
• Parties: Allen BEADLE v. STATE of Tennessee. 7 McCanless 97, 203 Tenn. 97, 310 S.W.2d 157
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

Page 157

310 S.W.2d 157

Allen BEADLE v. STATE of Tennessee.

7 McCanless 97, 203 Tenn. 97, 310 S.W.2d 157

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

Feb. 6, 1958.

J. Shelby Coffey, Jr. and T. E. Humphrey, Columbia, for plaintiff in error.

Thomas E. Fox, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BURNETT, Justice.

Beadle was indicted for murder. He was convicted for voluntary manslaughter and sentenced to serve a maximum of two years in the State Penitentiary. It is from this conviction that we have the present appeal.

The plaintiff in error's wife had, sometime prior to the date of the homicide which was on September 24, 1956, left him and gone to live with the deceased, one Joe Troope under the guise of cooking for him. She lived with him for some weeks prior to the homicide on South Main Street in Columbia, Tennessee.

Meantime the fourteen-year-old son of the plaintiff in error and this woman had come from the State of Ohio, where the parties formerly lived, to Columbia. After visiting with his mother for a few minutes and finding that she was not living with his father, he went out to the country to relatives of the father where the father was living. In a short time he started to school and it seems that the other youngsters at school teased him and made some fun about this (i. e., his mother living with another man), to the boy. As a result of this he went to his father and asked him if he could do something about the mother living with Troope. He wanted the father and mother to live together.

As a result of this conversation the father went in to Columbia to see Troope and the mother. Later, on the day of the homicide, he went back again arriving at the apartment of Troope and the wife of the plaintiff in error, about 10:15 o'clock in the morning. It seems that after some conversation Troope and the wife of plaintiff in error agreed that the wife was to get a divorce from the plaintiff in error so that it would not be embarrassing to their young son any further. After they had agreed that the wife would get this divorce the husband asked that Troope and his wife quit living together, so that it would not embarrass the child, until after the divorce was granted. This apparently did not suit Troope nor the wife and various words were said about it. According to the plaintiff in error, Troope went out of the house and invited the plaintiff in error outside. The plaintiff in error did not go. Troope came back in the house and as he came in the door to the room where the plaintiff in error was sitting, the plaintiff in error withdrew his gun from his pocket and shot the deceased, Troope, one time in the chest. He immediately fell over on his right side and was dead when they came and examined him.

There was found in the pocket of the deceased a long sharp butcher knife with a blade of some 4 1/2 or 5 inches. The record though does not indicate or even infer that the blade of this knife was sticking in the man. The only possible inference from the record is that the shot into the chest was what killed the man.

The plaintiff in error knew when he came in town that morning that he was going to see Troope. Troope had a bad reputation of being overbearing and had whipped a few people and sent word or said to others, which message had been communicated to plaintiff in error, that if he saw him he would kill him if he did not like what he, Troope, was doing. It was for this reason that the plaintiff in error when he came in town that morning had put the pistol of one of his relatives into his pocket.

The plaintiff in error's defense of course is necessary self defense. He, through his testimony makes out a very good case of self defense, but there is other testimony in the record particularly that of the wife which clearly would justify the jury in bringing in the verdict of voluntary manslaughter. Under all of the facts and circumstances in the case it seems that the jury really were more or less sympathetic with the plaintiff in error and gave him the very least sentence that they could under the evidence.

As said above the plaintiff in error testified in his own behalf and admitted this shooting but it was his position that this was done in his own necessary self defense. This question was submitted to the jury and the jury were properly charged as to this defense, that is, self defense. The jury is the judge of the law as given by the court, in other words the court acts as a witness as to what the law is in a criminal case and the jury are the exclusive judges of the facts. The question of self defense is a fact question. This matter was properly submitted to the jury and the jury determined this issue against the defendant under evidence which is adequate, abundant and sufficient to support their verdict.

We do not approve the practice of a directed verdict in a criminal case in this State on behalf of an accused. Knowling v. State, 176 Tenn. 56, 138 S.W.2d 416.

It is argued that the district attorney general in his concluding argument to the jury made inflammatory statements to the jury which were not in the evidence. The argument of the district attorney general is not in the record. The part complained of is that it is said that he told the jury, 'the defendant Beadle took this little girl and ruined her life and made her what she is today'. From argument of counsel and under this record this statement was made by the district attorney general in reference to Beadle and his wife. Apparently there must have been...